Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

I don't think stars are everything. I think that our recent success is proof of that. I am also not trying to bash our recruiting, but I found something on ESPN's SEC blog that I found interesting.

It shows the number of 4 and 5 star players taken by each SEC school over the last 4 years. Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are averaging 6-8 more 4/5 stars a year than SC. That's a pretty significant difference in talent. While one, two, or maybe even 3 highly ranked recruits in a given class may not pan out, and one or two 3-stars may develop into high caliber players, when you're getting 20-30 more highly ranked recruits on a given roster, it makes a difference.

I think we can win an SEC championship with the recruits we're getting. But I also think we need to be recruiting better if we expect to make it to ATL regularly.

generally speaking I agree with you.....but when you start to be more specific than just 1-5 stars. For example, the last couple of years, we have had 5-7 high 3* players....there's very little difference between them and 4* players. Also, in each class there is usually only 10-14 players that really contribute to a team's performance. So if our top 10 players are almost as good as their 12-14 players, we can compete with them. Also important is that the states of Georgia and Florida are very large, and those schools will almost always get the cream of the crop each year.

Eh I've said it before, if our coaches could pick any 25 recruits in the country they would all be 4* and 5*. That goes for any team. We recruit well enough to compete with the big time teams and our great coaching does the rest. But we saw when our coaching is not there (Tennessee this year) our talent wasn't quite good enough to win the game on it's own. Gotta have stars and coaching to win championships.

they'd all be 5 stars according to the coaches, not Rivals or 247 or Scout. Because they don't care one bit what these guys are ranked by recruiting services and they are going to think some guys with 2 or 3 star grades should be 5 stars.

Star rankings DO count for something, BUT they don't count for EVERYTHING.

They're a rough estimate of how good a kid currently is. There's a lot that happens between a commit and them graduating college. They're only based on available information, such as statisitics (performance, height/weight, 40 time, etc), how they look at the various camps and combines, and also pay attention to what big name schools have offered them. Now, a kid could very easily fly underneath the radar. He might know exactly where he wants to go, commit on getting one offer from a dream school and be done with it. He wouldn't attend all the combines, etc so the only thing that recruiting services have to go off of is their high school performance and the one offer. A recruit intent on going to that one school could also dissuade from getting more offers by telling coaches "sorry, not interested' so they wouldn't even bother extending an offer. Now all of this has to do with how good the recruit is RIGHT NOW.

What no recruiting service can measure just regarding an individual recruit is attitude and desire. Some kids are just plain morons who are all in it for the quick pay day. They're a big fish in their little high school pond and thing they're the second coming. They show up on campus and don't work hard and just plain rot in a festering pile of mediocrity. I think we can all remember a pair of running backs that fit that description.

Outside of the recruit themself, there's also the program that they get into. If a program isn't stable (coaching changes) or just doesn't develop talent very well, doesn't have a good S&C program, they're not going to develop like they could/should.

So stars do count for something, but they are by no means the end-all-be-all of a recruit. They shouldn't be relied upon nearly as much nor portrayed to be as meaningless as they are. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Extrapolate that further out...you can't get all caught up in class star rankings. In a sport where all the positions are so different, you've got to understand that it's all about addressing needs first, and then getting the best player second. A 5 star kicker probably is going to be an awful OT. A five star running back won't make a very good quarter back. It can get to be a square-peg/round-hole situation.

they'd all be 5 stars according to the coaches, not Rivals or 247 or Scout. Because they don't care one bit what these guys are ranked by recruiting services and they are going to think some guys with 2 or 3 star grades should be 5 stars.

Not sure what you mean. Coaches go out and actively recruit the guys with whom which they have a realistic shot at given geographical location or some kind of connection to. If our coaches knew they'd get Leonard Fournette without trying I'm sure they would. He's a 5* whether our coaches think he is or not. Same goes for a lot of guys.

If you want to win a championship, you do it on the field and win all your games. You don't win championships with your roster card.

Players make plays. You aren't winning a NC with mediocre talent. There is a clear path between recruiting and winning consistently on a national stage. This is the only weakness of our program. Why is that so hard to accept?

__________________
Q:Why did the Rooster cross the road?
A:To kick a Tiger's Ass

“You have guys who have never played the game of football rating these guys that they are a 5-star, because they’re sitting behind a computer screen watching their highlight film. Well, their highlight film is supposed to be good, the last time I checked. That’s the kind of thing that ticks me off about recruiting and when these kids come in, and they’re 5-stars and they expect to play right off the bat. It’s a little entitlement and when they don’t play off the bat, they get a little ticked off and they don’t want to work.”

The two star players in the Super Bowl thing is pretty invalid in my opinion. Over the past ten years or so there may have been about 350 5 stars total. Compare that with about 20,000 two stars. Given those percentages there is a higher percentage of 5 stars in the super bowl than 2 stars. It should also be noted that stars are predicting college usefulness. If 10% of 2 stars are late bloomers who end up becoming great players, that means in a 10 yr. period about 200 2 stars will be great players. If 50% of 5 stars end up great that number is less than 200.

The two star players in the Super Bowl thing is pretty invalid in my opinion. Over the past ten years or so there may have been about 350 5 stars total. Compare that with about 20,000 two stars. Given those percentages there is a higher percentage of 5 stars in the super bowl than 2 stars. It should also be noted that stars are predicting college usefulness. If 10% of 2 stars are late bloomers who end up becoming great players, that means in a 10 yr. period about 200 2 stars will be great players. If 50% of 5 stars end up great that number is less than 200.